RAVI JETLEY Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner who was an employee of the respondent/United India Insurance Co. Ltd., seeks the relief of quashing of the recovery of incentive moneys paid to the petitioner for the years 1994 -1995 and 1995 -1996. The amount in question of which recovery is sought by the respondent on account of incentive moneys wrongly being paid to the petitioner is a sum of Rs. 91,560/ - for the year 1995 -1996 and Rs. 52,935/ - for the assessment year 1998 -1999. An amount of Rs. 1,09,427/ - has already been deducted from the incentive money of the petitioner for the assessment year 1999 -2000. I must however at this stage say that there should be some lack of clarity as regards the exact amount as stated by the petitioner which is being recovered from the petitioner on account of incentive being wrongly paid to the petitioner, however, along with the petition Annexure P -17 has been filed which is a letter dated 17.8.2001 of the respondent which talks about the total recoverable amount being Rs. 1,44,495/ - and since part of the amount has been recovered from the incentives of the petitioner for the year 1999 -2000, the balance recovery works out to Rs. 35,068/ -.

(2.) AS per the incentive scheme of the respondent/Insurance Company, with respect to every client/customer which has been introduced by a Development Officer or an Agent, such person gets a particular incentive amount as per the business which is brought in by the new customer/client. Petitioner was working as Development Officer with the respondent and there is a dispute with respect to the incentive money payable with respect to the client/customer M/s. Vestas RRB (India) Ltd. Whereas the petitioner claims that he had introduced this client, the case of the respondent is that this client was introduced not by the petitioner but by one Mr. S.K. Srivastava, AAO (D) and which Mr. S.K. Srivastava, AAO (D) had issued the first cover note for this customer for the period of April, 1994 to September, 1994. Mr. S.K. Srivastava, AAO (D) was looking after some other administrative work, and therefore, petitioner Mr. Ravi Jetley was asked to do the administrative work of the account of Mr. S.K. Srivastava, AAO (D) including of M/s. Vestas RRB (India) Ltd., and therefore, petitioner for the years in question being 1994 -95 and 1995 -96 was not to be paid incentives for the account of M/s. Vestas RRB (India) Ltd. and it was to be payable to Mr. S.K. Srivastava, AAO (D) but the same was wrongly paid to the petitioner.

(3.) THE issue therefore to be decided is whether petitioner had or had not introduced the account of M/s. Vestas RRB (India) Ltd. for the petitioner to have got incentive with respect to this customer/client.